DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The pending application 18/196,834, filed on 12 MAY 2023, claims priority from foreign application KR10-2022-0077793, filed on 14 JUN 2022 in the Republic of Korea.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 2 MAR 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 11 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art, Sugimoto (US 5,986,601), Kim (US 2015/0134234) and Heinrichs-Bartscher (US 2015/0224986 A1) fail to disclose the amended features, “wherein the determining comprises determining whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object based on a distribution of difference values between the predicted range rate and the measured range rate for a plurality of points of the detected object.” Newly cited reference Zeng et al. (US 9,255,988 B2) is relied upon to teach the amended features. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 5,986,601, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Kim (US 2015/0134234 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Zeng et al. (US 9,255,988 B2, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto has been struck-through]
An object identification method (Sugimoto method of radar 1, Figs. 1-2), comprising:
receiving information about a motion of a host vehicle (Sugimoto vehicle V, Fig. 2) from a dynamics sensor (Sugimoto vehicle speed detection 15, Fig. 1) and receiving information about a range rate of a detected object located around the host vehicle (Sugimoto “the invention further includes an object relating means which relates a path object, for which the vehicle motion must be controlled, to at least one of a relative position and a relative speed of the object with respect to the vehicle in accordance with the result of the recognition by the object recognition means and the result of detection by the motion state detection means.” – Col. 3, lines 24-30) from a radar sensor (Sugimoto radar 1, Figs. 1-2; “radar 1 can detect objects in front of the vehicle” – Col. 5, lines 51-52);
calculating a predicted range rate of the detected object according to the motion of the host vehicle (Sugimoto “a locus prediction means to estimate a moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle in accordance with the result of detection by the motion state detection means, the object being determined as a stationary object by the stationary object decision means…” – Col. 2, lines 24-28) based on the information about the motion of the host vehicle and the information about the range rate of the object received from the radar sensor (Sugimoto “The moving locus of the object, determined to be stationary by the stationary object decision means, as observed from the vehicle is predicted by the locus prediction means in accordance with the result of detection by the motion state detection means that detects the motion state of the vehicle.” – Col. 2, lines 56-51); and
receiving a measured range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto “an actual locus calculation means to calculate an actual moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle in accordance with a change over time of the relative position of the object recognized by the object recognition means…” – Col. 2, lines 28-32) object or a moving object (Sugimoto “A stationary object decision means 4 decides whether or not the object recognized by the object recognition means 3 is a stationary object based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21, and a locus prediction means 51 predicts a moving locus of the object, determined to be a stationary object by the stationary object decision means 4, as observed from the vehicle, based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21.” – Col. 5, lines 59-67) based on the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto "The comparison means 71 includes a calculation section 111 for calculating a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means 51 and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means 61…" - Col. 6, lines 21-25),
Kim discloses:
receiving a measured range rate of the detected object (Kim “The second distance measuring unit serves to measure a second distance up to the target from the vehicle after a predetermined time elapses.” - ¶ [0053]) after a preset time (Kim “The vehicle position deciding unit serves to decide the second position of the vehicle from the first position of the vehicle based on a longitudinal speed and a transverse speed of the vehicle after the predetermined time elapses.” - ¶ [0054]).
Zeng et al. discloses:
wherein the determining comprises determining whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object based on a distribution of difference values between the predicted range rate and the measured range rate for a plurality of points of the detected object (Zeng et al. “The check is performed to determine if a predetermined percentage, preferably 80%, of a predicted range rate matches with actual Doppler measurements. If 80% of the residue values are within a threshold, than a determination is made that the cluster is stationary, otherwise, the cluster is determined to be dynamic.” – Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 2).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim and Zeng et al. into the invention of Sugimoto to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Sugimoto, Kim and Zeng et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose methods of using radar for detecting objects around a vehicle and determining if the objects are moving or stationary. Sugimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose receiving a measured range rate of the detected object after a preset time, and wherein the determining comprises determining whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object based on a distribution of difference values between the predicted range rate and the measured range rate for a plurality of points of the detected object. These features are disclosed by Kim where a second estimated relative speed of the target is measured after a predetermined time lapse (Kim ¶ [0039]) and Zeng et al. where “If 80% of the residue values are within a threshold, than a determination is made that the cluster is stationary, otherwise, the cluster is determined to be dynamic.” (Zeng et al. Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 2). The combination of Sugimoto, Kim and Zeng et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the position of the external object around a vehicle “so that an unmanned vehicle is drivable around an external object while a GPS is absent/lost, thereby ensuring robustness of the unmanned vehicle.” (Kim ¶ [0020]) and enhance “tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle” (Zeng et al. Col. 1, lines 19-21) and to “detect and track long extensible objects” (Zeng et al. Col. 2, lines 35).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 1, wherein the predicted range rate of the detected object is calculated from a predicted location of the host vehicle after the preset time based on the information about the motion of the host vehicle (Sugimoto “the motion state detection means includes a vehicle speed detection section to detect the speed of the vehicle and a lateral motion detection section to detect a yaw rate or lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and wherein the locus prediction means estimates the moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle based on the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detection section and on the yaw rate or lateral acceleration detected by the lateral motion detection section.” – Col. 2, line 62 - Col. 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 2, wherein the predicted range rate of the detected object is calculated assuming that the detected object is the stationary object (Sugimoto “a locus prediction means to estimate a moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle in accordance with the result of detection by the motion state detection means, the object being determined as a stationary object by the stationary object decision means…” – Col. 2, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object comprises calculating a difference between the predicted range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto “a comparison means for comparing the estimated value produced by the locus prediction means and the calculated value produced by the actual locus calculation means” – Col. 2, lines 33-36; “The comparison means comprises a calculation section to calculate a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means…” – Col. 3, lines 31-34) and the measured range rate of the detected object and comparing the difference between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object with a preset threshold (Sugimoto “the improper state decision means outputs a signal representing the improper state when a signal output from the comparison means in accordance with the result of the comparison between the calculated result from the actual locus calculation means and the estimated result from the locus prediction means, is greater than a first threshold value.” – Col. 3, lines 31-17) to determine whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object (Sugimoto “The stationary object decision means 4 determines that the object perceived by the object recognition means 3 in terms of the object's position relative to the vehicle, is stationary when the difference between the speed of the object relative to the vehicle and the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detection section 15 of the motion state detection means 21 is less than a small value of about 3 km/h.” – Col. 6, lines 47-54).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 1, further comprising correcting the information about the motion of the host vehicle based on a determination result of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object (Sugimoto “A stationary object decision means 4 decides whether or not the object recognized by the object recognition means 3 is a stationary object based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21, and a locus prediction means 51 predicts a moving locus of the object, determined to be a stationary object by the stationary object decision means 4, as observed from the vehicle, based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21.” – Col. 5, lines 59-67) (Sugimoto “The comparison means 71 includes a calculation section 111 for calculating a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means 51 and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means 61, and a correction section 121 for correcting, based on the result of the calculation by the calculation section 111, at least the relative position or relative speed of the object related by the object relating means 101.” – Col. 6, lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 7, wherein the correcting of the information about the motion of the host vehicle is performed only when the detected object is determined as the stationary object (Sugimoto method only proceeds once determining the object is stationary).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 7, wherein the correcting of the information about the motion of the host vehicle comprises correcting the motion information about the motion of the host vehicle to reduce a difference value between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto "The comparison means comprises a calculation section to calculate a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means, and a correction section to correct, based on the result of the calculation by the calculation section, at least one of the relative position and the relative speed to which the object relating means relates the path object." - Col. 4, lines 53-62).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
The object identification method of claim 7, wherein the correcting of the information about the motion of the host vehicle comprises correcting the information about the motion of the host vehicle received from the dynamics sensor or correcting a dynamics parameter of the dynamics sensor (Sugimoto "The comparison means comprises a calculation section to calculate a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means, and a correction section to correct, based on the result of the calculation by the calculation section, at least one of the relative position and the relative speed to which the object relating means relates the path object." - Col. 4, lines 53-62).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto has been struck-through]
An object identification device, comprising:
a memory (Sugimoto "the invention also relates to an ECU for a motor vehicle with at least one microcomputer…” - ¶ [0022]; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that a microcomputer comprises memory); and
a hardware processor that, when executing computer executable instructions stored in the memory (Sugimoto "whereby the method according to the invention has been stored at least partly on the at least one microcomputer as a computer program and runs at least partly on the at least one microcomputer.” - ¶ [0022]; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a microcomputer comprises a processor), is configured to:
receive information about a motion of a host vehicle (Sugimoto vehicle V, Fig. 2) from a dynamics sensor (Sugimoto vehicle speed detection 15, Fig. 1) and receive information about a range rate of a detected object located around the host vehicle (Sugimoto “the invention further includes an object relating means which relates a path object, for which the vehicle motion must be controlled, to at least one of a relative position and a relative speed of the object with respect to the vehicle in accordance with the result of the recognition by the object recognition means and the result of detection by the motion state detection means.” – Col. 3, lines 24-30) from a radar sensor (Sugimoto radar 1, Figs. 1-2; “radar 1 can detect objects in front of the vehicle” – Col. 5, lines 51-52);
calculate a predicted range rate of the detected object according to the motion of the host vehicle (Sugimoto “a locus prediction means to estimate a moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle in accordance with the result of detection by the motion state detection means, the object being determined as a stationary object by the stationary object decision means…” – Col. 2, lines 24-28) based on the information about the motion of the host vehicle and the information about the range rate of the detected object received from the radar sensor (Sugimoto “The moving locus of the object, determined to be stationary by the stationary object decision means, as observed from the vehicle is predicted by the locus prediction means in accordance with the result of detection by the motion state detection means that detects the motion state of the vehicle.” – Col. 2, lines 56-51); and
receive a measured range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto “an actual locus calculation means to calculate an actual moving locus of the object relative to the vehicle in accordance with a change over time of the relative position of the object recognized by the object recognition means…” – Col. 2, lines 28-32) (Sugimoto “A stationary object decision means 4 decides whether or not the object recognized by the object recognition means 3 is a stationary object based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21, and a locus prediction means 51 predicts a moving locus of the object, determined to be a stationary object by the stationary object decision means 4, as observed from the vehicle, based on the result of detection by the motion state detection means 21.” – Col. 5, lines 59-67) based on the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object (Sugimoto "The comparison means 71 includes a calculation section 111 for calculating a difference between the estimated value determined by the locus prediction means 51 and the calculated value determined by the actual locus calculation means 61…" - Col. 6, lines 21-25),
Kim discloses:
receive a measured range rate of the detected object (Kim “The second distance measuring unit serves to measure a second distance up to the target from the vehicle after a predetermined time elapses.” - ¶ [0053]) after a preset time (Kim “The vehicle position deciding unit serves to decide the second position of the vehicle from the first position of the vehicle based on a longitudinal speed and a transverse speed of the vehicle after the predetermined time elapses.” - ¶ [0054]).
Zeng et al. discloses:
wherein the determining comprises determining whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object based on a distribution of difference values between the predicted range rate and the measured range rate for a plurality of points of the detected object (Zeng et al. “The check is performed to determine if a predetermined percentage, preferably 80%, of a predicted range rate matches with actual Doppler measurements. If 80% of the residue values are within a threshold, than a determination is made that the cluster is stationary, otherwise, the cluster is determined to be dynamic.” – Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 2).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim and Zeng et al. into the invention of Sugimoto to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Sugimoto, Kim and Zeng et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose methods of using radar for detecting objects around a vehicle and determining if the objects are moving or stationary. Sugimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose receiving a measured range rate of the detected object after a preset time, and wherein the determining comprises determining whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object based on a distribution of difference values between the predicted range rate and the measured range rate for a plurality of points of the detected object. These features are disclosed by Kim where a second estimated relative speed of the target is measured after a predetermined time lapse (Kim ¶ [0039]) and Zeng et al. where “If 80% of the residue values are within a threshold, than a determination is made that the cluster is stationary, otherwise, the cluster is determined to be dynamic.” (Zeng et al. Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 2). The combination of Sugimoto, Kim and Zeng et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the position of the external object around a vehicle “so that an unmanned vehicle is drivable around an external object while a GPS is absent/lost, thereby ensuring robustness of the unmanned vehicle.” (Kim ¶ [0020]) and enhance “tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle” (Zeng et al. Col. 1, lines 19-21) and to “detect and track long extensible objects” (Zeng et al. Col. 2, lines 35).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 20 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 10 is applied.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 5,986,601, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Kim (US 2015/0134234 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Zeng et al. (US 9,255,988 B2, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Heinrichs-Bartscher (US 2015/0224986 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto has been struck-through]
The object identification method of claim 4
Heinrichs-Bartscher discloses:
wherein the determining of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object comprises determining that the detected object is the moving object if the difference between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object is equal to or greater than the present threshold (Heinrichs-Bartscher "In practice, for the identification of stationary objects P a deviation Δv is permitted, the order of magnitude of which amounts to .+-.3 km/h, so that the difference formed from the absolute value of the relative-velocity component--viewed in the direction of motion of the vehicle in question--vREL,X and the absolute value of the velocity vVEH of the vehicle must be less than or equal to this deviation" - ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Heinrichs-Bartscher into the invention of Sugimoto as modified above to yield the invention of claim 5. Sugimoto, Kim, Zeng et al. and Heinrichs-Bartscher are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose methods of using radar for detecting objects around a vehicle and determining if the objects are moving or stationary. Sugimoto as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 4. However, Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object comprises determining that the detected object is the moving object if the difference between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object is equal to or greater than the present threshold. This feature is disclosed by Heinrichs-Bartscher where "In practice, for the identification of stationary objects P a deviation Δv is permitted, the order of magnitude of which amounts to .+-.3 km/h, so that the difference formed from the absolute value of the relative-velocity component--viewed in the direction of motion of the vehicle in question--vREL,X and the absolute value of the velocity vVEH of the vehicle must be less than or equal to this deviation" (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0042]). The combination of Sugimoto, Kim, Zeng et al. and Heinrichs-Bartscher would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the position of the external object around a vehicle “so that an unmanned vehicle is drivable around an external object while a GPS is absent/lost, thereby ensuring robustness of the unmanned vehicle.” (Kim ¶ [0020]), enhance “tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle” (Zeng et al. Col. 1, lines 19-21) and to “detect and track long extensible objects” (Zeng et al. Col. 2, lines 35) and “permit a specified mounting tolerance, in order to keep down the costs and the effort in connection with the mounting of the sensor(s).” (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0012]) and “due to the electronic self-calibration, the determination of the position of the objects is effected with very high accuracy…” (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0020])
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Sugimoto as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto has been struck-through]
The object identification method of claim 4
Heinrichs-Bartscher discloses:
wherein the determining of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object comprises determining that the detected object is the stationary object if the difference value between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object is less than the predetermined threshold (Heinrichs-Bartscher "In practice, for the identification of stationary objects P a deviation Δv is permitted, the order of magnitude of which amounts to .+-.3 km/h, so that the difference formed from the absolute value of the relative-velocity component--viewed in the direction of motion of the vehicle in question--vREL,X and the absolute value of the velocity vVEH of the vehicle must be less than or equal to this deviation" - ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Heinrichs-Bartscher into the invention of Sugimoto as modified above to yield the invention of claim 6. Sugimoto, Kim, Zeng et al. and Heinrichs-Bartscher are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose methods of using radar for detecting objects around a vehicle and determining if the objects are moving or stationary. Sugimoto as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 4. However, Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining of whether the detected object is the stationary object or the moving object comprises determining that the detected object is the stationary object if the difference value between the predicted range rate of the detected object and the measured range rate of the detected object is less than the predetermined threshold. This feature is disclosed by Heinrichs-Bartscher where "In practice, for the identification of stationary objects P a deviation Δv is permitted, the order of magnitude of which amounts to .+-.3 km/h, so that the difference formed from the absolute value of the relative-velocity component--viewed in the direction of motion of the vehicle in question--vREL,X and the absolute value of the velocity vVEH of the vehicle must be less than or equal to this deviation" (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0042]). The combination of Sugimoto, Kim, Zeng et al. and Heinrichs-Bartscher would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the position of the external object around a vehicle “so that an unmanned vehicle is drivable around an external object while a GPS is absent/lost, thereby ensuring robustness of the unmanned vehicle.” (Kim ¶ [0020]), enhance “tracking of an objects position and orientation relative to a host vehicle” (Zeng et al. Col. 1, lines 19-21) and to “detect and track long extensible objects” (Zeng et al. Col. 2, lines 35) and “permit a specified mounting tolerance, in order to keep down the costs and the effort in connection with the mounting of the sensor(s).” (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0012]) and “due to the electronic self-calibration, the determination of the position of the objects is effected with very high accuracy…” (Heinrichs-Bartscher ¶ [0020])
Regarding claim 15 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
9 APR 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights